On 8 Aug 2010, at 01:37, Marco Pesenti Gritti <ma...@marcopg.org> wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2010, at 21:08, Tiago Marques <tiago...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Just killing a random activity is a terrible idea becayse you don't want >> your product behaving like it's defective; the pop up idea is way more >> acceptable(and a lot better than having the system randomly behaving like >> it's crashed). Either way, this is the extremely important use of swap >> memory that doesn't exist here. I understand your engineering constraints on >> the hardware but randomly killing activities is poised to confuse users and >> cause people considering the hardware for deployment to think that you're >> selling them something defective/baddly manufactured. > > As long as activities are saving and restoring properly it could be made > pretty much transparent to the user. Of course that's easier said then done... +1, that would be an ideal solution. Minimal interface distinction between active and dormant activities; fast resume (perhaps some visual trickery using the thumbnail image to help cover any delay); improve activity UI state saving. --G > Marco > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
